Here's my oral, any tips/criticism is welcome.
Bearing in mind though that I can't really add anything to it.. it's just over 5 minutes, so anything that you think can be removed due to irrelevance or redundancy is helpful.
The prospect of a nuclear economy seems enticing to many, and with good reason. Properly controlled and regulated, nuclear fission can be a safe, clean and effective energy source and it has the potential to play a big part in our future energy needs.
The use of Uranium in nuclear fission reactors is common, and Australia is home to the world’s largest known Uranium reserves. While we don’t use these resources for our own clean energy generation, we export all of our mined Uranium to other countries for their own nuclear systems.
As beneficial as these systems are for efficient, pollution-free energy generation, I’m sure you are aware of the way that nuclear power can be harnessed in a devastating way, in the form of nuclear weapons.
In order to help manage, and eventually eradicate nuclear arms and munitions, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was brought into practice in 1968 with the goals to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.
To this day, only four countries remain non-signatories. They are North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India.
Being a mass exporter of Uranium, it is in our best interest to know that the Uranium we supply is being used for peaceful purposes, so when Malcolm Fraser’s government began the international sale of uranium in 1977, they made a commitment that sales would be made only to countries that were signatories to the non-proliferation treaty.
Every Australian government since then has upheld this commitment, until now. Julia Gillard has done the very reverse and has forced a policy change through a deeply divided ALP national conference. The decision that has many critics furious is the sale of Australian Uranium to India, who are not signatories to the treaty. It is not only a bad decision based on India’s poor nuclear proliferation record, it is a disgrace that an International policy such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty can be blatantly ignored because there is economic gain to be made.
The South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, of which Australia was a founding signatory, allows uranium exports only to countries that have full-scope, comprehensive nuclear safeguards in place. India has consistently and irrefutably refused full-scope safeguards, thus selling uranium to India would breach more of our international treaty obligations.
If the decision has been made to disregard these treaties in this instance, then what purpose do these treaties, or for that matter, any national or international treaty or agreement serve? What justifies us or any nation to adhere to the terms of any treaty?
Shifting focus from our government to the Indian government, questions arise regarding whether or not India are able and willing to use our Uranium for peaceful and safe actions.
A recent report released by the ‘Nuclear Threat Initiative’ ranked India fourth-last among international nuclear states for nuclear safety. The report rated India as below average for transparency, corruption, material storage sites, the independence of regulators and security during transport.
The question remains as to whether or not the Indian government is in a position to firstly organise construction and maintenance of nuclear facilities, and then to use the Uranium for peaceful purposes only. Until they meet standards achieved by other buying countries and show they are capable of employing safeguards and sufficient regulations that are not affected by their corrupt government, we should not support the sale. A different set of rules should not be employed just because there is potential for economic gain.
In defence of the decision, Julia Gillard states that the trade will strengthen our strategic partnership with India and will result in economic gain in Australia. While those arguments seem tempting, when weighed up against the potential risks, they seem quite futile.
A possible outcome from the policy backflip and trade is the fuelling of further hostility between India and Pakistan. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan is not some theoretical possibility, but a real and growing danger. War has broken out between the nations three times since World War II, and cross-border support for terrorism has created further crises.
Only one year after nuclear test explosions by India and then Pakistan in 1998, they went to war in Kashmir. One million soldiers were deployed, and nuclear threats made by both sides. Pakistani officials have repeatedly said if Indian forces crossed the border, Pakistan would respond with nuclear weapons. In any crisis, deliberate or involuntary nuclear escalation could occur.
Between them, India and Pakistan possess more than 200 nuclear weapons. Both add more each year. Pakistan has the world's fastest growing nuclear arsenal. This heaps pressure on India’s military to continue the development and construction of nuclear arms.
The consequences of a nuclear war between the two nations would be catastrophic. The enormous population density in India would mean that upwards of 50,000 people could be killed and hundreds of thousands more injured by a single nuclear bomb.
The nuclear fallout would be global, the entire world would be affected by widespread carcinogenic radiation, atmospheric damage, reduced food production… and it all could potentially be fuelled by Australian Uranium.
Considering how severe the potential risks are, in contrast with the positives of political and economic gain, I pose a single question: Is it worth it?
Home
Help
Search
Login
